Reign of Error
-
It is a blind claim. It seems to be the standard response to any criticism of the current administration.
espeir wrote:
Much of the content of the article is demonstrably false
So you say, but saying is not the same as demonstrating.
dennisd45 wrote:
It is a blind claim. It seems to be the standard response to any criticism of the current administration.
He actually gave a specific example and I gave several. That's demonstrable. Your accusatory "I'm right, you're wrong" claims don't work here. If you're going to accuse someone of making "blind claims", you need to provide something to back up your argument or it winds up being as useful as fat_boy's rants*. *Not that anything here is actually useful. -- modified at 9:17 Friday 28th July, 2006
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
And you do like what he says, so Bush is a lying neocon.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
dennisd45 wrote:
It is a blind claim. It seems to be the standard response to any criticism of the current administration.
He actually gave a specific example and I gave several. That's demonstrable. Your accusatory "I'm right, you're wrong" claims don't work here. If you're going to accuse someone of making "blind claims", you need to provide something to back up your argument or it winds up being as useful as fat_boy's rants*. *Not that anything here is actually useful. -- modified at 9:17 Friday 28th July, 2006
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
-It's not unreasonable to believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD shortly before we invaded. After all, we sold it to him!
The author was talking about what people believe now, not what they believed in 2003. So your statement is irrelevant. We can have a separate debate about what the administration knew about the falseness of the intelligence. Your statements on the state of the economy are debateable, but if you want to demonstrate something, actually provide some numbers.
espeir wrote:
It seems to be that he's suggesting that Bush didn't invade Iraq because of their refusal to comply with UN resolutions which is completely untrue
What he was saying was the Bush claimed he had to invade because of non-compliance. But at the time of the invasion, there was movement to let the inspectors back in.
espeir wrote:
If you're going to accuse someone of making "blind claims",
On numerous threads both you and Stan have done this - dismiss by claiming leftist bias.
-
And you do like what he says, so Bush is a lying neocon.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
espeir wrote:
-It's not unreasonable to believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD shortly before we invaded. After all, we sold it to him!
The author was talking about what people believe now, not what they believed in 2003. So your statement is irrelevant. We can have a separate debate about what the administration knew about the falseness of the intelligence. Your statements on the state of the economy are debateable, but if you want to demonstrate something, actually provide some numbers.
espeir wrote:
It seems to be that he's suggesting that Bush didn't invade Iraq because of their refusal to comply with UN resolutions which is completely untrue
What he was saying was the Bush claimed he had to invade because of non-compliance. But at the time of the invasion, there was movement to let the inspectors back in.
espeir wrote:
If you're going to accuse someone of making "blind claims",
On numerous threads both you and Stan have done this - dismiss by claiming leftist bias.
dennisd45 wrote:
The author was talking about what people believe now, not what they believed in 2003. So your statement is irrelevant. We can have a separate debate about what the administration knew about the falseness of the intelligence.
Not irrelevant at all. I also believe (correctly, as Stan pointed out) that Saddam Hussein had WMD when we invaded. We sold him those weapons and even found stashes of it. If Krugman were actually digging for the truth, he would check to see how many people believe that Hussein had active WMD production programs (something sold to the American public before the invasion). I'm guessing few people believe that.
dennisd45 wrote:
Your statements on the state of the economy are debateable, but if you want to demonstrate something, actually provide some numbers.
Everything economic is debatable, but the fact of government revenue[^] increases is not. You might argue that the increased government revenue (which is a result of increased production and therefore tax base) is not related to the tax cuts, but Alan greenspan[^] and the correlation disagree with you.
dennisd45 wrote:
What he was saying was the Bush claimed he had to invade because of non-compliance. But at the time of the invasion, there was movement to let the inspectors back in.
As I recall, Saddam Hussein changed his mind days before we went in. Too little, too late. Krugman quite clearly states "Mr. Bush has repeatedly suggested that the United States had to invade Iraq because Saddam wouldn’t let U.N. inspectors in*". The entire case for the invasion of Iraq was based on the fact that for 6 months, Saddam Hussein refused to comply with the world in allowing inspections of what he had going on. Krugman flat out lied here...and not simply because he's a leftist, but because his statements contradict facts.
dennisd45 wrote:
On numerous threads both you and Stan have done this - dismiss by claiming leftist bias.
There
-
He is actually making a case that Bush is a liar. You, are the other hand were simply asserting that the NY Times is unreliable.
dennisd45 wrote:
the NY Times is unreliable
Yup.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
John Carson wrote:
Strange thing then
Its a strange thing when the democrat's house organ, the once venerable NYT, and its constant barrage of biased reporting has no effect after 6 years of drum beating and pure treason. Realize that every newspaper in the country uses NYT as the news lead every day of the week. The fact that their crap is now ignored says a lot, and it is all positive. Thank God for talk radio and FoxNews.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. dennisd45 wrote: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Thank God for talk radio and FoxNews.
You'll do fine as Exhibit A of right wing delusional thinking.
John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
I don't get it. He basically made a lot of politically-motivated statements without backing them up, and much of what he suggests is untrue is actually complete factual. -It's not unreasonable to believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD shortly before we invaded. After all, we sold it to him! -The economy is better than when Bill Clinton was president. GDP growth rates are higher and better sustained by real economic data (whereas Clinton's term was ruled by irrational exhuberance, much like the 1920's). -He suggests that the tax cuts had nothing to do with reduction of economic inequality. I have not read anything about this, but the tax cuts did actually increase government revenue to levels higher than when Clinton was president. That has turned liberals on their heads and caused serious confusion. -It seems to be that he's suggesting that Bush didn't invade Iraq because of their refusal to comply with UN resolutions which is completely untrue. This has always been a clear fact and this Krugman is guilty of attempting to rewrite history here. -The "climate of intimidation" in the media has obviously suppressed such stories whose secrecy was important to the war on terror like wire-tapping and financial tracking. :rolleyes: Anyway, this story is just another Democratic Party paid-for political ad and a perfect example of why most Americans don't trust leftist news outlets like the NYT. It's pretty funny to read his claims that the Republicans Party controls news outlets while being such a transparent Democratic shill. I expect this and more over the next couple months, however, because it's an election year and Democrats need to get around their 1st-amendment-destroying McCain-Feingold bill.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
I don't get it. He basically made a lot of politically-motivated statements without backing them up, and much of what he suggests is untrue is actually complete factual.
And you'll do fine as Exhibit B of delusional right wing thinking.
John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
espeir wrote:
I don't get it. He basically made a lot of politically-motivated statements without backing them up, and much of what he suggests is untrue is actually complete factual.
And you'll do fine as Exhibit B of delusional right wing thinking.
John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
And you'll do fine as Exhibit A of a tool.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
>>So one side's dead babies are more important No, I have never ever said that.. I consider the Hezzbollahs to be terrorists and should be destroyed. However by killing babies and civilians, I pretty much get the same opinion about Israel. In order to not appear as bad as the terrorists, Israel should give higest priority to not harm the civilians, even if it costs more Israeli soldiers lives when they cant use bomb raids. This is not how Israel currently handles the matter, they attack in blind rage. //Roger
Roger J wrote:
However by killing babies and civilians, I pretty much get the same opinion about Israel.
Why is this so hard to understand? Hezbollah is using civilians and babies as shields. Israel is not targeting babies/civilians. Hezbollah is putting these innocent lives in around them as sheilds. They do this so some uninformed people will get outraged at Israel. All the civilian deaths were killed at or near terrorist targets.
Roger J wrote:
This is not how Israel currently handles the matter, they attack in blind rage.
Show us proof of this. Israel is not just lobbing shells randomly, this is 2006 , they do have a pretty good targeting system.
My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
Roger J wrote:
I just think it does so in a very clumsy manner with no respect for the innocent.
I agree that it appears clumsy. But, as you know, appearances can be deceiving. Israelis are no different to anyone else (well, almost anyone): they, like you and me (I hope), are brought up to respect life. But they're at war. Innocent people are going to die no matter how much care either side take. It doesn't make it right. But instead of moaning about how terrible Israel are how about also condemning Hezzbollah for hiding amongst the civilian population to begin with and for starting the whole thing to begin with. Or has everyone conveniently forgotten that Israel didn't start this?
home
bookmarks You can ignore relatives but the neighbours live next doorChicken shit, you still havent looked at http://www.btselem.org/english/Testimonies/index.asp[^] have you? Its all the proof anyone needs to know that those hard line Israeli Jewish assholes just love killing Arabs, regardless of their sex or age.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
He is actually making a case that Bush is a liar. You, are the other hand were simply asserting that the NY Times is unreliable.
dennisd45 wrote:
You, are the other hand were simply asserting that the NY Times is unreliable.
Well given the track record from the last couple years, yes, the case that the NYT is unreliable can be easily made.
My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
dennisd45 wrote:
The author was talking about what people believe now, not what they believed in 2003. So your statement is irrelevant. We can have a separate debate about what the administration knew about the falseness of the intelligence.
Not irrelevant at all. I also believe (correctly, as Stan pointed out) that Saddam Hussein had WMD when we invaded. We sold him those weapons and even found stashes of it. If Krugman were actually digging for the truth, he would check to see how many people believe that Hussein had active WMD production programs (something sold to the American public before the invasion). I'm guessing few people believe that.
dennisd45 wrote:
Your statements on the state of the economy are debateable, but if you want to demonstrate something, actually provide some numbers.
Everything economic is debatable, but the fact of government revenue[^] increases is not. You might argue that the increased government revenue (which is a result of increased production and therefore tax base) is not related to the tax cuts, but Alan greenspan[^] and the correlation disagree with you.
dennisd45 wrote:
What he was saying was the Bush claimed he had to invade because of non-compliance. But at the time of the invasion, there was movement to let the inspectors back in.
As I recall, Saddam Hussein changed his mind days before we went in. Too little, too late. Krugman quite clearly states "Mr. Bush has repeatedly suggested that the United States had to invade Iraq because Saddam wouldn’t let U.N. inspectors in*". The entire case for the invasion of Iraq was based on the fact that for 6 months, Saddam Hussein refused to comply with the world in allowing inspections of what he had going on. Krugman flat out lied here...and not simply because he's a leftist, but because his statements contradict facts.
dennisd45 wrote:
On numerous threads both you and Stan have done this - dismiss by claiming leftist bias.
There
the first point is still irrelevant, he was talking about then he is talking about now. You can believe there were WMD's but there is no evidence. You're first link is to an unsupported graph, so it doesn't mean much. You're second link is to a 2001 article in which Greenspan supports tax cuts, but it doesn't support that tax cut's raised revenue(It couldn't - this was in 2001.).
espeir wrote:
There you go again...
I say it because you have.
espeir wrote:
I dismiss clearly biased articles as unreliable
What is clear is your belief of bias.
-
the first point is still irrelevant, he was talking about then he is talking about now. You can believe there were WMD's but there is no evidence. You're first link is to an unsupported graph, so it doesn't mean much. You're second link is to a 2001 article in which Greenspan supports tax cuts, but it doesn't support that tax cut's raised revenue(It couldn't - this was in 2001.).
espeir wrote:
There you go again...
I say it because you have.
espeir wrote:
I dismiss clearly biased articles as unreliable
What is clear is your belief of bias.
dennisd45 wrote:
the first point is still irrelevant, he was talking about then he is talking about now. You can believe there were WMD's but there is no evidence.
For the last time it IS relevant because numerous chemical weapons HAVE been found. The fact that you continue to deny this is proof that you need to diversify your news outlets.
dennisd45 wrote:
You're first link is to an unsupported graph, so it doesn't mean much. You're second link is to a 2001 article in which Greenspan supports tax cuts, but it doesn't support that tax cut's raised revenue(It couldn't - this was in 2001.).
The first link is based on government revenue, which you are apparently dismissing because of the source (hypocrite). The raw data is publicy available and if you want to dismiss the source, I suggest you first do some research (the department of Treasury website has this data) before making yourself look stupid. The second link illustrates our former chief economists opinion on the matter. Like I said, causality for something as complex as the US economy is impossible to determine, but all the evidence supports the fact that tax cuts did indeed increase government revenues. If you decide to deny the causality (and you would be in the small minority as economists go), you must accept as a minimum that government revenues increased regardless of tax cuts, thereby indicating that lower taxes are better.
dennisd45 wrote:
What is clear is your belief of bias.
I'm capable of thinking for myself. Even as I present clear evidece based on raw data that directly contradicts this author, you decide to believe his arbitrary claims. You are, like most leftists, a mindless follower.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Thank God for talk radio and FoxNews.
You'll do fine as Exhibit A of right wing delusional thinking.
John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
You'll do fine as Exhibit A of right wing delusional thinking.
and you'll do fine as a cool aid drinker.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. dennisd45 wrote: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced
-
dennisd45 wrote:
the first point is still irrelevant, he was talking about then he is talking about now. You can believe there were WMD's but there is no evidence.
For the last time it IS relevant because numerous chemical weapons HAVE been found. The fact that you continue to deny this is proof that you need to diversify your news outlets.
dennisd45 wrote:
You're first link is to an unsupported graph, so it doesn't mean much. You're second link is to a 2001 article in which Greenspan supports tax cuts, but it doesn't support that tax cut's raised revenue(It couldn't - this was in 2001.).
The first link is based on government revenue, which you are apparently dismissing because of the source (hypocrite). The raw data is publicy available and if you want to dismiss the source, I suggest you first do some research (the department of Treasury website has this data) before making yourself look stupid. The second link illustrates our former chief economists opinion on the matter. Like I said, causality for something as complex as the US economy is impossible to determine, but all the evidence supports the fact that tax cuts did indeed increase government revenues. If you decide to deny the causality (and you would be in the small minority as economists go), you must accept as a minimum that government revenues increased regardless of tax cuts, thereby indicating that lower taxes are better.
dennisd45 wrote:
What is clear is your belief of bias.
I'm capable of thinking for myself. Even as I present clear evidece based on raw data that directly contradicts this author, you decide to believe his arbitrary claims. You are, like most leftists, a mindless follower.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
For the last time it IS relevant because numerous chemical weapons HAVE been found. The fact that you continue to deny this is proof that you need to diversify your news outlets.
Well, you can choose to believe that a few decade old shells are reason enough to go to war, Go ahead.
espeir wrote:
The first link is based on government revenue, which you are apparently dismissing because of the source (hypocrite).
I didn't dismiss it because of the source, I dismissed because you provided no source.
espeir wrote:
The second link illustrates our former chief economists opinion on the matter
.. in 2001. That is not proof that the tax cuts have increased revenue.
espeir wrote:
You are, like most leftists, a mindless follower
I'm impressed - you used "most" instead of "all". Congratulations on developing a nuanced view of "leftists".
-
espeir wrote:
For the last time it IS relevant because numerous chemical weapons HAVE been found. The fact that you continue to deny this is proof that you need to diversify your news outlets.
Well, you can choose to believe that a few decade old shells are reason enough to go to war, Go ahead.
espeir wrote:
The first link is based on government revenue, which you are apparently dismissing because of the source (hypocrite).
I didn't dismiss it because of the source, I dismissed because you provided no source.
espeir wrote:
The second link illustrates our former chief economists opinion on the matter
.. in 2001. That is not proof that the tax cuts have increased revenue.
espeir wrote:
You are, like most leftists, a mindless follower
I'm impressed - you used "most" instead of "all". Congratulations on developing a nuanced view of "leftists".
dennisd45 wrote:
Well, you can choose to believe that a few decade old shells are reason enough to go to war, Go ahead.
That's not the issue at hand. Krugman stated that half of the public believes a lie...That Iraq had WMD when we invaded. The US found WMD and Krugman is therefore lying. Your failure to concede that obvious point borders on ridiculous.
dennisd45 wrote:
I didn't dismiss it because of the source, I dismissed because you provided no source.
Yes I did. I gave you a link. It's right there in front of your face. See it? The purple little thingy??? The figure that says Krugman is a liar?
dennisd45 wrote:
.. in 2001. That is not proof that the tax cuts have increased revenue.
Duh. What did I just say? Do you have any concept of macroeconomics? Causality? I clearly said that causality cannot be determined. But because you fail to grasp basic points, you have digressed from the original point...Krugman's lies. He suggested that the economy was better under Clinton. This is demonstrably false and the link I provided demonstrated that clearly enough for any Jr. high school student. But since you obviously have lesser capabilities, I'll point you here: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/1[^] That's unbiased federal reserve economic data. Pay close attention to such graphs as this[^]. See how non-farm output is much higher than it was under Clinton? Or this[^]. See how manufacturing output is much higher than it was under Clinton? Also notice how that decline that the NYT attributed to Bush began under Clinton? Or this[^]. Krugman is an outright liar. His claims are intentionally false and succeed in misleading only people so incapable of thinking for thems
-
dennisd45 wrote:
The author was talking about what people believe now, not what they believed in 2003. So your statement is irrelevant. We can have a separate debate about what the administration knew about the falseness of the intelligence.
Not irrelevant at all. I also believe (correctly, as Stan pointed out) that Saddam Hussein had WMD when we invaded. We sold him those weapons and even found stashes of it. If Krugman were actually digging for the truth, he would check to see how many people believe that Hussein had active WMD production programs (something sold to the American public before the invasion). I'm guessing few people believe that.
dennisd45 wrote:
Your statements on the state of the economy are debateable, but if you want to demonstrate something, actually provide some numbers.
Everything economic is debatable, but the fact of government revenue[^] increases is not. You might argue that the increased government revenue (which is a result of increased production and therefore tax base) is not related to the tax cuts, but Alan greenspan[^] and the correlation disagree with you.
dennisd45 wrote:
What he was saying was the Bush claimed he had to invade because of non-compliance. But at the time of the invasion, there was movement to let the inspectors back in.
As I recall, Saddam Hussein changed his mind days before we went in. Too little, too late. Krugman quite clearly states "Mr. Bush has repeatedly suggested that the United States had to invade Iraq because Saddam wouldn’t let U.N. inspectors in*". The entire case for the invasion of Iraq was based on the fact that for 6 months, Saddam Hussein refused to comply with the world in allowing inspections of what he had going on. Krugman flat out lied here...and not simply because he's a leftist, but because his statements contradict facts.
dennisd45 wrote:
On numerous threads both you and Stan have done this - dismiss by claiming leftist bias.
There
-
>>So one side's dead babies are more important No, I have never ever said that.. I consider the Hezzbollahs to be terrorists and should be destroyed. However by killing babies and civilians, I pretty much get the same opinion about Israel. In order to not appear as bad as the terrorists, Israel should give higest priority to not harm the civilians, even if it costs more Israeli soldiers lives when they cant use bomb raids. This is not how Israel currently handles the matter, they attack in blind rage. //Roger
Roger J wrote:
However by killing babies and civilians, I pretty much get the same opinion about Israel.
The difference between Israel and the Army of Allah (Hizballah) is that the Israeli Defense Forces are motivated by the protection of civilians, in particular, from kidnappings, rocket attacks on civilian towns, and suicide bombers blowing up in buses, hotels, pizza parlors. Contrast this with the Army of Allah which is motivated by their belief that Allah hates Jews and therefore Jews should be killed en masse, civilian and military populace alike. Their real goal is, of course, removing the Jewish race from the plot of land known to them as Palestine. I think the correct term for that is "genocide". Yes, ordinary people--civilians--die on both sides; it's a terrible side-effect of war. The difference lies in motivation and purpose; it is neither Israel's motivation or purpose to wipe out the Lebanese populace, whereas it is the motivation and purpose of the Army of Allah to wipe out the Jewish populace in Israel.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Messianic Instrumentals (with audio) The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Well, you can choose to believe that a few decade old shells are reason enough to go to war, Go ahead.
That's not the issue at hand. Krugman stated that half of the public believes a lie...That Iraq had WMD when we invaded. The US found WMD and Krugman is therefore lying. Your failure to concede that obvious point borders on ridiculous.
dennisd45 wrote:
I didn't dismiss it because of the source, I dismissed because you provided no source.
Yes I did. I gave you a link. It's right there in front of your face. See it? The purple little thingy??? The figure that says Krugman is a liar?
dennisd45 wrote:
.. in 2001. That is not proof that the tax cuts have increased revenue.
Duh. What did I just say? Do you have any concept of macroeconomics? Causality? I clearly said that causality cannot be determined. But because you fail to grasp basic points, you have digressed from the original point...Krugman's lies. He suggested that the economy was better under Clinton. This is demonstrably false and the link I provided demonstrated that clearly enough for any Jr. high school student. But since you obviously have lesser capabilities, I'll point you here: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/1[^] That's unbiased federal reserve economic data. Pay close attention to such graphs as this[^]. See how non-farm output is much higher than it was under Clinton? Or this[^]. See how manufacturing output is much higher than it was under Clinton? Also notice how that decline that the NYT attributed to Bush began under Clinton? Or this[^]. Krugman is an outright liar. His claims are intentionally false and succeed in misleading only people so incapable of thinking for thems
espeir wrote:
That's not the issue at hand. Krugman stated that half of the public believes a lie...That Iraq had WMD when we invaded. The US found WMD and Krugman is therefore lying. Your failure to concede that obvious point borders on ridiculous.
WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction. Old shells with degraded gas do not constitute WMD. The belief is in the context of a reason to go to war. It is the issue at hand. From the article: "(Hyping of the munitions find may partly explain why public belief that Saddam had W.M.D. has made a comeback.)"
espeir wrote:
Yes I did. I gave you a link. It's right there in front of your face. See it? The purple little thingy???
That link is to a graph with no indication of where it came from. You could have been the author. No source. As far as you economic data goes, first you say it can't be proved then you cite evidence that you say proves it, and you call Kruger a liar on something you say can't be proven.
espeir wrote:
dennisd45 wrote: I'm impressed - you used "most" instead of "all". Congratulations on developing a nuanced view of "leftists". I always generalize correctly. All liberals are misguided in their thinking, but some do achieve that misguidance on their own.
Back to "all" again. You're safe now, no nuance. -- modified at 11:40 Friday 28th July, 2006
